WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 20 December 1962)

§ LORD JESSEL
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD HASTINGS
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wishes to have a special water resources committee, but Her Majesty's Government feel that the river authority ought to be allowed to determine how it is going to organise its affairs. It may consider that some of its affairs are best dealt with on the basis of area committees and to have others dealing with policy. Again, it may wish to reserve some matters, including some or all of those affecting its new functions, for determination by the authority as a whole. To require the authority to have a separate committee to be concerned only with the new functions would be likely, in our opinion, to lead to a separation, physically and mentally, between its functions and to a growth of conflicting bodies of opinion.
The aim of the Government, as I have said in previous Amendments, is to see fully integrated authorities, with all members conscious of and understanding the needs and points of view of the varying interests upon which the authorities' interests impinge. We want to see land drainage experts participating in discussions on abstraction and minimum acceptable flows and experts in problems of public water supply considering problems arising on fisheries and the prevention of pollution. We want all-round ability, not just expert knowledge of one particular aspect. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that we are being narrow or mean on this matter. We feel that it will be better if the river authorities order their own business to suit the varying circumstances which they will find in different areas, and get on with the job in the manner they think most efficient.

§ LORD LINDGREN
I thank the noble Lord for the reply, but all be said could have been said about the setting up of the finance committee in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 11. Had sub-paragraph (1) not been in paragraph 11 there would have been no argument, because subparagraph (2) perhaps gives the authority for them all. It seemed to me that if we were going to instruct them to set 1307 up a finance committee we might instruct them about something else. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE
In this Amendment the point we seek to establish is quite a simple one—namely, that in a case where an interest under Clause 6 (3) is represented by not more than one member appointed by the Minister or Ministers that member should have the same kind of power to appoint an alternate as have the Coal Board under the clause in the Bill to which this Amendment relates. In framing the Amendment it was pointed out that if that applied so far as the Coal Board were concerned and it applied also to other interests defined in Clause 6 (3), then the occasional case where the Ministry of Transport might be similarly represented should also be covered. The principle is quite simple, and I hope that the Government will agree that where an interest requires to be represented on the river authority by not more than one member, provision should be made for an alternate, so that decisions are not taken without that interest having an opportunity of expressing its view. I beg to move.

EARL WALDEGRAVE
I should like to support the Amendment that has been so clearly moved by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. It seems to me to be quite simple, and I hope the Government will feel that this will be an addition to the Bill which will make it a little better. If there is a case for a special member, whether he be a special member of the National Coal Board in the two particular areas, the Yorkshire Ouse and the Hull River Authority, in Clause 8 (2) of the Bill, or whether he be a special member for transport under subsection (3), or whether under Clause 6 (3) the special member who has to be 1308 skilled in land drainage, fisheries, agriculture, public water supply or industry, it seems to me only common sense that there should be a provision for an alternate to be available so that if that special member has the flu or suddenly dies the special interest should be represented when the committee are deliberating.

LORD ST. OSWALD
The two noble Lords, the mover and the supporter of this Amendment, have both spoken with admirable brevity and clarity. I am afraid that I shall have to take slightly more time than they have, lamentable as it may be, because although they have both described the point as a simple one it does not seem to us quite as simple in practice as it seems to them in theory.
At present, there are two river boards only to which the National Coal Board appoint a member, and it is upon these two cases that they have based their case; that is, the Trent River Board and the Yorkshire Ouse River Board. Those two members perform the useful and important function of keeping the river board aware of Coal Board activities likely to affect land drainage, in particular—and obviously mining resulting in subsidence may give rise almost overnight to new land drainage problems of great difficulty—and of keeping the National Coal Board authorities for the area aware of the activities, plans and needs of the river board. Where, perhaps—and I say "perhaps" advisedly—this differs in detail from other interests that the noble Lords had in mind is that it concerns the day-to-day functions of the river boards and in future the river authorities.
I live in one of the two areas, the Yorkshire Ouse River Board area. I should not like to be accused on that account of taking up a dog-in-the-manger attitude, but essentially this is representation of a technical character and for limited technical purposes. Therefore, one sees the appropriateness of providing, as the River Boards Act does, for this particular member of the board to nominate someone to attend in his stead. In practice, another person from the same department of the Coal Board organisation will attend to make available to the hoard this particular sort of technical advice when the principal appointee is unable to be there. 1309 The provision of the River Boards Act, 1948, on this matter is re-enacted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of this Bill, and it is this provision which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to supplement.
Before turning to the merits of the Amendment, may I further remind the Committee of another point in relation to the membership of river boards. It is that the Act of 1948 provides that where the river board exercises, or is about to exercise, navigation functions, the Minister of Transport may appoint someone to represent these interests as an additional member of the board. This provision would be applied only where navigation interests were of sufficient importance to justify it. This is one member it is a representative appointment of the same nature as those made to represent fishery and drainage interests, and there is no provision for a substitute to attend instead of the person appointed.
I hope that I have said enough to bring to your Lordships' minds two points. First, there is no standard practice in these matters at the moment, and precedent does not give us any clear answer to the question. The National Coal Board appointment affects only two special areas. Secondly, the nearer precedent available in this context of Ministerial appointments—that is, the navigation member on river boards—includes no arrangement for an alternative member.
All the same, I would not argue with my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve that this can be dismissed by reference to this particular precedent. It is perfectly true that the characteristics of a river authority area might lead the Ministers in constituting the authority, after consultation with the interests concerned, to conclude that the correctly proportioned membership should include only one person with a particular qualification. And certainly if that member were unable to attend, the voice of that particular sort of experience would not be heard. My noble friend has described this as a matter of principle, and it would be wrong of me to dismiss such a matter lightly, even though that principle is at the moment founded in practice on two cases.
I accept that there is something here which would bear further examination 1310 and consideration, but the matter is not without its difficulties. It is not possible for me to say at this stage whether the Government will feel able to introduce some alteration to the Bill on this score. Doubt, I think, must certainly be felt about the proposition in the Amendment that the Minister appointee should nominate his own substitute. In the constitution of joint water boards, provision is customarily made, in orders made under Section 9 of the Water Act, 1945, for alternative representations, and it is the appointed local authority which nominates both the representative and his deputy. It would not, I think, be easy for the Minister to appoint a second string on this basis. But this is a problem which might well succumb to further examination, and I need not detain the Committee further on this point. As I have said, the Government are willing to examine it further, and if my noble friend is able to see his way clear to withdraw his Amendment, that consideration can and will be given.

§ LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE
I thank the noble Lord very much for the detailed reply he has given to this Amendment. I had not anticipated that there were so many difficulties. Dealing with the last point first, I am sure the principle would be perfectly adequately met—if the Government find it suitable for adoption—if the alternate member were appointed with the agreement of the Minister concerned. The principle is to endeavour to ensure that the river authority should not take any decisions of importance which could conceivably affect any of the interests required to be represented there unless that interest was represented when the decisions were taken. That is the essence of the whole matter. We did not base the Amendment on the Coal Board, but we used this clause for the purpose of inclusion in the Bill because it seemed the only convenient place at which it could be introduced. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that the Government will consider the principles involved in this, and with that assurance I gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, reserving to myself the right to raise the matter again on the Report stage if the Government decision should not be favourable.